Jevon McSkimming complainant allegedly sent 87 emails to wife of officer overseeing investigation into her

Do you know more? Email sam.sherwood@rnz.co.nz

The charge against the woman was withdrawn in the Wellington District Court in September because McSkimming did not wish to give evidence. But the woman remained before the court on two charges of causing harm by posting a digital communication in relation to another police officer and his wife.

On Wednesday, the case was called in the Wellington District Court before Judge Andy Nicholls.

At the hearing, Judge Nicholls granted RNZ access to a court document that detailed the police allegations against Ms Z. The police officer and his wife had name suppression. Ms Z pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The document said Ms Z was in contact with the officer in charge of the prosecution into the initial charges she faced. However, due to the volume and nature of emails, phone calls and text messages that she sent to him a bail condition was added, preventing her from contacting him except through her counsel.

The court document said this “frustrated” Ms Z who “went about trying to circumvent this ban on contact”.

Police said Ms Z went online and discovered the identity of the officer’s wife and found out they had young children. She also found the wife’s contact details, including her employer, job title, work email address and home address.

“She accessed social media to locate material about her locating a photograph of [the wife] at a social event many years earlier holding a beer bong. This required a lot of effort as it was not on [the wife’s] own Facebook page.

“The defendant decided that this photograph was embarrassing for [the wife].”

She was accused of creating a fake email address and sending 87 emails to the wife’s work email address between 26 June and 3 July 2025. She copied senior police officers, the Lower Hutt mayor and a journalist into some of the emails.

“The emails were threatening and highly disparaging of [the wife]. They also contained highly offensive language. The content of the emails worsened over time. The emails also made reference to [the wife’s] young children.

“This included highly offensive sexual references about the children and suggesting they should be sexually abused.”

The court document said some of the emails were sent in quick succession. Ten were sent in the space of 51 minutes on 29 June, nine in the space of 32 minutes, and 56 were sent on the same day.

The document said Ms Z referred to the couple’s home address in her emails.

“The reference to their home address in combination with the derogatory and offensive content of the emails caused serious emotional distress, embarrassment and anxiety to both [the wife] and her husband. This impacted both their personal and professional lives.”

On 3 July, Ms Z was arrested and charged in relation to the emails. Bail conditions were imposed to prevent her from contacting the wife.

It was alleged she then began messaging the chief executive of the company where the wife worked, sending 10 emails to the CEO in one day in August from the same fake email account. A senior police officer was copied into some of the emails.

“The emails were threatening, and contained offensive language and derogatory comments about [the wife]. The defendant also made sexual references in relation to [the wife’s] young children.”

The wife was advised of the emails. The court document said the email “caused further serious emotional distress, embarrassment and anxiety to [the wife] and her husband”.

Ms Z’s lawyer earlier filed an application to dismiss the charges she faced on the grounds that the continued prosecution was “an abuse of process”.

On Wednesday, the application was discussed again. Ms Z’s lawyer, Steven Lack, said his client’s position was that the initial prosecution against her was “an abuse of process by the police because it was designed to silence her”.

“And then the second prosecution is effectively fruit of the poisoned tree in that regard.”

In response, barrister Ian Murray – acting for police – said there were “multiple ways this abuse of process could be sliced”.

“It could be that the original prosecution was in bad faith to prevent her from airing allegations about McSkimming, that’s probably the most understandable ground.

“In my submission there are then some breaks in the chain that would make even that argument difficult to sustain in relation to her behaviour, in relation to a completely unrelated person not connected with the investigation.”

He said he did not understand how a suggestion that there was a deliberate not charging of McSkimming could make prosecution of her in relation to her alleged conduct an abuse of process.

A pre-trial callover has been set for 9 June. Judge Nicholls continued suppression orders for Ms Z and the police officer and his wife.

RNZ earlier approached police asking if they had any comment on charges she still faced and whether police would now drop them.

In response, Police Commissioner Richard Chambers said the matter was before the court and police had instructed a senior criminal barrister in the proceeding.

“It would be inappropriate for me to comment about the merits, including public interest, of any case that is before the court.

“However, what I have done and what I can say is that I have assured myself that proper process has been followed in bringing this case.”

Assistant Commissioner Mike Johnson said Ms Z was the defendant in a prosecution in the district court.

“In these circumstances it is not appropriate to comment publicly on the merits of the prosecution, including the public interest.”

In an earlier statement to RNZ, Lack said police “failed my client”.

“Over a period of years, she attempted to report allegations of serious physical, psychological and sexual offending by McSkimming, then one of the most senior Police Officers in the country. Instead of being heard, she was dismissed and ultimately prosecuted for speaking out and raising her concerns.

“At every stage, the police had the opportunity to engage with her, to properly assess what she was saying, and to investigate her allegations. They could have viewed her as a traumatised victim.

“They chose not to. They accepted McSkimming’s denials without meaningful inquiry and placed the full weight of the criminal justice system on my client for more than a year until the charge against her was withdrawn. Understandably this has had a devastating impact on her.

“The way her complaints were handled should alarm all New Zealanders. It suggests that the police were more focused on protecting McSkimming’s career and advancement than on properly assessing serious allegations of offending against him.”

Lack said the police were an organisation “entrusted by the community to protect and serve”.

“In my client’s case, they did neither.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.